5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Delft.
6.  On 7 June 2006 a person was stopped for questioning in connection with an offence against the General Municipality Bye-laws (Algemene Plaatselijke Verordening) of The Hague. He had no proof of his identity on his person.
7.  The police officer identified the person as the applicant from a police photograph. The applicant was fined 50 euros (EUR) for not being able to show proof of identity. The fine was not paid, and the applicant was summoned to appear before the District Court judge (kantonrechter) of The Hague to answer a charge of failing to present an official identity document (see paragraph 16 below).
8.  On 15 January 2007 the applicant appeared before the District Court judge. He claimed to be innocent, suggesting that the culprit might have been his brother. He stated that he had been acquitted of similar charges several times before. The District Court judge then adjourned the hearing in order to enable the reporting police officer and the applicant to check an identity photograph together. The applicant gave a mobile telephone number so that an appointment could be made.
9.  On 9 May 2007 instructions were sent on the public prosecutor's behalf to the police for the applicant to be shown the police identity photograph, a new official record to be made and a photograph of the applicant and if possible his brother also to be attached thereto.
10.  On 27 June 2007 a police officer drew up an official record of his various attempts to contact the applicant by telephone; he had been met with a recording of the voice of a man asking callers not to leave any messages because he had insufficient prepaid credit to listen to them and call back. The Government state that the police officer who had first identified the applicant (paragraph 7 above) wished to persist in his statement that he had recognised the accused as the applicant from the photograph in the possession of the police. Clear police photographs of the applicant and his brother, which the Government state show that there was little resemblance between them, were dispatched in addition.
11.  The hearing was resumed on 11 October 2007 at 12 noon. The applicant had been summoned in writing but failed to turn up in time to take part. The District Court judge then tried him in absentia, convicted him and sentenced him to a fine of EUR 60 or one day's detention in lieu. Judgment was given orally. The official record of delivery reads as follows:
“OFFICIAL RECORD OF DELIVERY OF ORAL JUDGMENT (AANTEKENING MONDELING VONNIS)
Judgment given by District Court judge C. on 11 October 2007 in the case against the accused
Name:Lalmahomed
First names:Goelzeer
Born on:30 October 1962 in District Suriname (Suriname)
Address:[etc.]
Place of residence:Delft
Defended case, [accused] failed to turn up after adjournment
QUALIFICATION:
Minor offence defined in Article 447e of the Criminal Code (Wetboek van Strafrecht), section 2 of the Compulsory Identification Act (Wet op de identificatieplicht)
COMMITTED:
on 7 June 2006
DECISION:
Fine of EUR 60,00 or 1 day's detention in lieu
The judge states that for lodging an appeal this case is subject to a special procedure, the so-called leave-to-appeal system.
(signed) the District Court judge”
12.  The applicant lodged an appeal the same day by filling in a form at the registry. He stated his reasons for wishing to appeal as follows:
“I did not attend the hearing because:
I was mistaken about the time. I thought it was at 1 p.m. ...
I would have wished to put forward the following:
I am not the person who committed the offences. I have been acquitted 8 or 9 times already because someone else is misusing my identity.”
13.  On 3 December 2007 a single-judge chamber of the Court of Appeal (gerechtshof) of The Hague sitting as President gave a decision refusing the applicant leave to appeal. It contains the following reasoning:
“In view of the case file, which includes an extract from the criminal register (justitiële documentatie), the President does not consider plausible the applicant's statement that his identity details are systematically misused by someone else and that he has been acquitted by the courts several times already because of that.
The President is not aware of any other reasons for which the interests of the proper administration of justice require the case to be heard in appeal.”
The judgment of the District Court judge thus became final.
14.  The extract from the criminal register as contained in the case file of the single-judge chamber of the Court of Appeal shows that the applicant has been convicted of crimes from his early adulthood until recently. He has also submitted authentic copies of official records of oral delivery of recent summary judgments of the District Court of The Hague. These are dated 19 January 2006, 2 May 2006, 19 June 2006, 8 March 2007 and 8 January 2008. They give no details of the cases other than that they ended in acquittals.